Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 17, 2013 1:00pm-1:30pm PDT

1:00 pm
they showed similar results. for spanish speaking el's this shows a slightly different rate of reclassification so in the third grade more el's [inaudible] you can see here that there become a gap and students in biliteracy [inaudible] we are able to -- in the process of cleaning up our data we are able to look at data by el pathway. on the next slide... >> can i just make one suggestion. this is really important that slide is really important, but blue on blue on other blue -- i can't even
1:01 pm
differentiate what is what so if you could get this re-sent to us would be great. >> do you want me to do it later? >> okay. next we're gonna be looking at achievement by el pathway. so it's important to look at change because [inaudible]. and so we're going to look at achievement or growth from english learners and we're going to look at two different sets looking at the [inaudible] and then the cst. so this graph is looking at second graders in 2009, 10 and what's happening is they are -- we're looking to see which students are matched from second to third grade and what
1:02 pm
percentage of these students are made growth on the self on the california english [inaudible] so in the dark blue we have the [inaudible] pathway and in the green you can see the percentage of students who are made growth. then the same cohort of students -- what percentage of those students made growth. so this is something schools are able the look at. same graph, but this time we're looking at spanish speaking english learners. we have [inaudible] pathway is in green so again, it's the same
1:03 pm
-- looking at growth so you can see here that there was 64.5 percent growth in spanish biliteracy [inaudible] also in third. these next two sets of graphs look at the same kinda concept -- achievement change, but using the tests -- the california standards test in english language arts so again, we have here on the left, the dark is the [inaudible] biliteracy pathway and the [inaudible] are from third to fourth grade. and for spanish speaking el's we have the same kind of data. and so again, the take away is that now we are able to provide this kinda information to schools so they can use it. next we're gonna
1:04 pm
look at an el -- classroom profile by el pathway and this is something that the rpa desk provides to schools and we're gonna look at three things and i'll explain on the next slide. so here this top one that says n equals 20 -- we're looking at this case at el's who started at this particular school in second grade in 2009 [inaudible] there were /#20* students that started in [inaudible] biliteracy and we're looking at -- there's percent of efficiency level from second grade moving up to third to fourth and the key part of this graph is to look at -- compare this group to the kennedy's bilingual students -- these are all e l's of the
1:05 pm
school -- all matched el's an then this bottom set of bar graphs are other students in [inaudible] biliteracy across the district so schools can use this information to see how this compares to other pathways in the school and how does it compare to other district biliteracy pathway. so there's a little legend at the bottom. >> good evening. data driven instruction is clearly a priority in our district. i 'd like to provide examples of the sources of data that we use.
1:06 pm
[inaudible] data such as the [inaudible] language assessments. and then we also consider our qualitative data to be a critical elm to informed practice and a few we'd like to particularly mention are walk throughs, which were a collaboration between our department and lead and special education and also our critical parent input via [inaudible]. and one specific site example that i'd like to provide is -- and this is how data has been used to drive instruction in one particular cohort of schools and that is in collaboration with our department, lead and rpa data
1:07 pm
were used to develop sites specific high leverage strategies such as enhanced english instruction, a focus on rigor and identifying important interventions specific to long term english learns and i'd like to pass the baton to christina. >> so the final portion is just an overview of the [inaudible] provision. i just wanna go over why we are [inaudible] so this is gonna be the 5th year of implementation and we want to have the opportunity to remove [inaudible] deadlines that have been completed and include them in on going practices. we also want this new document to priority key
1:08 pm
come -- components. so some of the proposed next steps between march -- between now and may of this year would be finalizing proposed revisions based on departmental feedback and gathered feedback from stake holders including bcc, [inaudible] council, the parent advisory council and of course our labor partners and other stake holders. we also wanna take the opportunity to develop a fiscal analysis and ensure that the document that we're gonna be revising in the final product would be sustainable over time. between june of this year we would like to
1:09 pm
initiate the [inaudible] submit revisions to the court. at this time this concludes our presentation. do the board members have any questions? >> thank you. i have a couple of questions, i presume that you have data that will -- you know, [inaudible] clearly shows us increasing significantly above the state average, but there are no targets there. i don't know what -- and this is a one year so i don't -- there isn't anything here that tells me over time how long it's taking people -- kids to get reclassified. >> so this past year we've established benchmark
1:10 pm
expectationings in terms of expectations of how many years it would take for reclassification. so with pathway it would take about six years. and we have a 17 percent target to ensure we're reclassifying students at the six year mark. >> and we see the state's reclassification percentages or numbers are smaller, the rhetoric at the state level is about much faster reclassification than that so is there something in what the state is telling us? i mean, are they just pretending that we're gonna reclassify within whatever it is -- three or four years even though it's not happening? >> well, i think that we said ours because we're trying to ensure that our students are
1:11 pm
moving forward and we don't have long term english learners in our district and the state recognizes that long term is five years or more so with that charge and knowing that we want students to move up, that they're successful, that they have greater opportunities we're making a lot of efforts at the elm tear level to do that prevention. this is something we're committed to. >> can i add to that? i do want to talk about the work we've been doing in terms of the services that we've been providing and also following up with our school sites to make sure that students who are eligible for reclassifications are being consider for that. maybe sometimes the paperwork isn't being followed up on so
1:12 pm
we're being more con /ses tent and creative at how we do that. >> my other question is about this chart. as was pointed out here, these are essentially the same so i'm kind of interested because we have been talking for years about we are phasing out the bilingual programs because they weren't effective so i don't get it. i need somebody to explain this to me how that can be english emersion which shows the diversion on the spanish... >> so the stanford study captures in 2000 to 2011 and so within that span of time we did still have earl -- early exit and late exit programs. so this is just a starting point and through that work we're now
1:13 pm
able to take a closer look, as you've seen at the charts that are provided, looking at 2010 they're moving up and as we're phasing the early exit pathways out /*ft . >> on what do we base our [inaudible] this is the direction in which we wanna go, but it's not okay for us to say based on ineffectiveness this is our recommendation to say it's okay to phase this out if this one piece of data doesn't seem to support that assertion. show me some other data so that i know why -- we shouldn't be asserting that we know something unless we do. >> this data really -- it
1:14 pm
starts with kindergarten so the students enter the kindergarten and they go through -- some of these students may have left the pathway, some may have stayed and a lot of 'em -- their primary language instruction stopped at third grade and i think [inaudible] there was great inconsistency in terms of how the pathways were being implemented. the hope is now that we have the clean data and the program variable -- part of the standard study also includes not only running this data set, but also interviews with former administrators and really understanding at the site level how much primary language instruction was happening at that time so we can actually
1:15 pm
take a look at site by site in terms of their implementation and what the effect and impact is so we're hoping to get that data soon as well. >> i appreciate that. however we're phasing out these programs. we can't using this as a baseline [inaudible] so at the very least it seems to me we need a different description of why we phase them out unless we have other data that you haven't showed us. i >> i do believe this is an opportune time to get this data because we are taking that information and using it to make a best recommendation in moving forward. we realize that in terms of what research based reasoning for saying that one program may be better than
1:16 pm
the other was not necessarily the reality of what was happening for our students in our school, but we didn't have the longitudeal data. let /aos look at that, make the enhancements we need, and figure out what we should and should not do based on this data set. also, we're looking at this data to see who are these english learners so when we talk about them as a whole, we don't often talk about what their -- if they're coming in as beginners in a particular program or if they're coming in as intermediate or advanced who haven't been reclassified so we're delving in with much data and getting as much information as possible.
1:17 pm
>> the main thing we should be concerned about is the difference between this and that so that's something that i presume one revision to the plan will /aeu -- address and be talking about i hope. >> are we phasing out -- are we continued now to phase out the early exit bilingual programs in the even the face of data that you're saying is much better, has the ability to analyze much better going forward, but in the past we had made the decision to phase out these programs, but are we still phasing them out... >> we were told they were not effective. >> sounds like we're gonna look at this data and recalibrate, but does that mean we're still gonna phase 'em out. ? >> like i said we're at a prime
1:18 pm
location to make that decision. where we're at in terms of phasing things out is at third and fourth grade so as we look at how we move forward with those schools that are on track to expanding their pathways, that's where we have a little bit of time to be able to make that determination to be able to make decisions on how we're going to move forward. >> i'm pressing on this point because i have some fear that we have made a lot of decisions about our pathways that are most effective that data may not be supporting now. so there's a lot of really big ininvestments that we have made in emersion programs and other
1:19 pm
pathways and there's huge constituent -- if these were not based a good data... /-rpblgts y >> we were actually able to take cohort by cohort and track the progress of the student. this is an example of the 2009, 10 cohort -- we can see how they do over time. we are now in the second grade level of
1:20 pm
full biliteracy. but to be honest, in the past, it really depended on the time of year and as we phased or moved those cohorts up the grade level, we worked with the sites to increase the -- but i think that just going back, this is opportunity to be able to [inaudible] we are allowed that flexibility to be able to do that at this point. >> i'm having a hard time believing what i'm seeing and hearing. this shows this
1:21 pm
pathway being more successful than the other pathways we have been expanding in our district in a very rapid passion. so looking in comparison to emersion, i mean, we have been expanding emersion programs left and right and it looks as though the biliteral pathway is serving our students better -- english and spanish. is that what the data is telling me? that's what i'm seeing in the data. >> i think it's important to realize that [inaudible] the one that you're on -- the achieve /-pl change -- these
1:22 pm
represent basically a three year time period from second to third and then third to fourth and part of that blue graph that was hard to looking at it overall longer period. it is important just to look at students proficiency overall longer period so they can receive the max mall benefits of having had the pathway instruction. >> but that's if they stay in the pathway. that's if they stay in the pathway, right? so kids test out, they don't have to stay in the pathway evening. -- even. i also think the front loading is really important because the longer we wait for students to be proficient, the harder it is to play catch up later. so i
1:23 pm
understand and see that one, but still i'm looking at these other rates, which are higher than even these rates for latino students. i see what the chinese students are at, like, 90 percent but when i look at latino students it's 60 percent and when i'm looking at the pathway we're looking at almost 80 percent for our spainish speakers so maybe this is just a snapshot of it, but it does give me a little pause because it looks as though that in fact we have been -- so i am not seeing that our emersion program are not as /e -- i'm just -- not effective. i'm just saying there is a difference in what the data tells us around student achievement for english
1:24 pm
learners with these different pathways and there must be some reason why that we're getting different results and what is it about the biliteracy pathways that we're not doing in our emersion pathway so we get the same sort of stellar results that we are with biliteracy pathways and i think that is something we should really look at before we think about the expansion of more emersion programs. i think we tried to start one at brett heart. is this the correct pathway for these students and if it is, what are we doing to tweak it to make it more effective. this is our strategy for [inaudible] it's
1:25 pm
really first and foremost position is to serve or english learners so i have to say i'm a little -- wigged out about it. i am thinking -- and i'm really glad this is the opportunity to look at it and change it, but i think this is shocking to me. and then i don't understand the graph on page nine and so i'm looking at a couple things and i guess i can't read it that well /-pls . >> can i address the other points. if you were a [inaudible] two did you grow to three? if you're at a four or a five, if you maintain that level that's considered to be
1:26 pm
gross. and commissioner wynn said earlier asked about targets and the state does set targets for achievement change. it's been a moving target and it's about 56 percent right now, just to give you an idea of how students are doing. if they're surpassing that mid 50 rang that seems to be a good measure. looking at that blue graph, that looks at students who started in kinder in one of the pathways and even if they leave the pathway they're still /r-p sented by this. so the [inaudible] at least in spanish does show a different -- those two things. >> so the chart that i'm looking at is on page eight -- i think that's the one i'm most freaked out about it. so that does chart achievement percent
1:27 pm
of test takers was [inaudible]. that is the strong indicator about academic achieve /-pl achievement, is it not? >> [inaudible] that would be considered positive and if a student was at a two /-rblgs they they would have to get to a three making gross. so it's just a student who have gone up one level and those students who were at four or five have stayed at that level. >> that's the goal? this academic, trending up -- that's our goal. i mean, that's what we want them to do. so when i'm looking at this i'm seeing what we wan them to do in the right direction is looking like
1:28 pm
biliteracy pathway. it is academic. this is the goal, right? so whether we're moving up one. we don't want them to go back, we want them to be advancing all the time. those people at four or five -- that is what we wanna see. these children will have to graduate. so i don't need to take up anymore of the board's time but i think i should probably meet with you to discuss this graph 'cause i don't understand it. it could be i just don't get what it's telling me, but i don't need to waste the board member's time because i understand there's probably board members who understand this fully... >> i think we need the two minute explanation for that.
1:29 pm
>> i don't real /hre -really get this graph. >> let 's look at one that says m equals 20 but the top one says fourth grade -- the one with little bit of yellow and then the one below that says second. so read that the opposite way. so if you start in second grade the number of students who are proficient is that light green and the percentage of students that are advanced. so at that time 100 percent of the students were in green which was proficient or advanced. now we do see a dip going into third grade. the scores drop across the board and so we see that reflected here. some of those students who had been at proficient or


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on